4 ms·

I believe we live in a meritocracy, but don't think we should do that. I see no moral reason to do this. Inheriting money doesn't make any one else poorer. I

by mises 7y ago

I believe we live in a meritocracy, but don't think we should do that. I see no moral reason to do this. Inheriting money doesn't make any one else poorer. If I'm wrong, why? All this aside, I think it's great that this gentleman made this choice. I think it will do a lot more good this way, and might even make his son more successful (by avoiding trust-fund syndrome).

floe 7y ago
It does, if you would have redistributed the proceeds from the estate tax. But I'm guessing you really have a different objection.
danans 7y ago
The process of acquiring a massive fortune does make some poorer (definitely in the relative sense), even as it makes some better off, that is, it drives inequality. Technology picks up some of the slack by raising the floor standard of living, but only if doing so is also profitable for the financier or seller of the technology, and never anything beyond that. While that process may be necessary to incentivize innovation, it has societal costs, and it's not unreasonable to consider offsetting those costs by confronting the wealth gap directly. But I would argue the concentration of extreme wealth in few hands actually hinders innovation, and therefore makes society poorer overall, because a great number of people who might otherwise contribute creatively to major societal problems instead must focus their efforts on daily survival.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  Inequality stifles innovation because capialists have no reason to make production more efficient when labor is artificially cheap, as it is in Asia. Why build an automated factory to build the machines that build memory chips when little slave children can do the same thing for pennies? In this way, organized labor drives innovation under capitalism, because capitalists will seek to maintain and grow their profits in the face of rising labor prices.
- mises 7y ago
  > The process of acquiring a massive fortune does make some poorer (definitely in the relative sense) This is my issue with the whole "wealth inequality" concept. It's just that: you have more money than I do. So what? Sure, I'd like more money, but I don't think it's the government's job to take your money and give it to me. I have never seen the issue with CEOs making tens of millions of dollars; they do a very singular job (in a well-run company). > Technology picks up some of the slack by raising the floor standard of living, but only if doing so is also profitable for the financier or seller of the technology, and never anything beyond that. You think the Gates Foundation operates on a for-profit basis? I think you are correct with respect to businesses, but would prefer non-profits pick up the slack for the very bottom of society, rather than the government. > While that process may be necessary to incentivize innovation, it has societal costs, and it's not unreasonable to consider offsetting those costs by confronting the wealth gap directly. I agree it has societal costs. How do you propose to directly address it? I don't think giving the government the power to take and distribute how it deems best is a good solution. > the concentration of extreme wealth in few hands actually hinders innovation, and therefore makes society poorer overall, because a great number of people who might otherwise contribute creatively to major societal problems instead must focus their efforts on daily survival. Though it does have problems, I think it also makes it easier in some ways. Angel investors can make it much easier to start a business, and certainly easier than if you had to pitch the middle class for two thousand dollars a piece. I guess my overall issue is that I don't know of a better way. The best solution I can come up with to help is to stop the crony capitalist element, subsidies, etc.; where government picks winners and hands out contracts. I don't trust the government (particularly not the federal) to do most anything right, and I think if they are given more money (via, say, increased taxes), they will just waste it, likely signing more large, crony-ist government contracts in the process. If there's a better solution, what might it be? I think if one is proposed, maybe it's best to test it on a state or local level first. I tend to start from a moral perspective: how can we morally justify taking money from others at gunpoint to make things "fairer"?
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    how can we morally justify taking money from others at gunpoint to make things "fairer"? Perhaps it depends how they got it. If they got it by "unfairly" taking it from their neighbour at gunpoint, can we morally justify taking it from them at gunpoint - perhaps in order to return it to that neighbour? If that seems like a fair action, if we can justify that, then the principle is established that sometimes it is morally justified, and we then need "only" identify those qualifying situations.
EliRivers 7y ago
How are you defining "meritocracy"? To some people, it's so obvious that we don't live in one that your statement seems just utterly incredible. I can only conclude you and they must have different definitions of "meritocracy". In the interests of not coming across as a passive-aggressive dickhead, I believe that the US and the UK (where I happen to live) are, to a large extent, meritocracies, and I think this is a bad thing that stunts (many) people's opportunities to excel and achieve. I suspect we have quite different working definitions of "meritocracy".

by mises 7y ago

floe 7y ago

It does, if you would have redistributed the proceeds from the estate tax. But I'm guessing you really have a different objection.

danans 7y ago

The process of acquiring a massive fortune does make some poorer (definitely in the relative sense), even as it makes some better off, that is, it drives inequality. Technology picks up some of the slack by raising the floor standard of living, but only if doing so is also profitable for the financier or seller of the technology, and never anything beyond that. While that process may be necessary to incentivize innovation, it has societal costs, and it's not unreasonable to consider offsetting those costs by confronting the wealth gap directly. But I would argue the concentration of extreme wealth in few hands actually hinders innovation, and therefore makes society poorer overall, because a great number of people who might otherwise contribute creatively to major societal problems instead must focus their efforts on daily survival.

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
Inequality stifles innovation because capialists have no reason to make production more efficient when labor is artificially cheap, as it is in Asia. Why build an automated factory to build the machines that build memory chips when little slave children can do the same thing for pennies? In this way, organized labor drives innovation under capitalism, because capitalists will seek to maintain and grow their profits in the face of rising labor prices.
mises 7y ago
> The process of acquiring a massive fortune does make some poorer (definitely in the relative sense) This is my issue with the whole "wealth inequality" concept. It's just that: you have more money than I do. So what? Sure, I'd like more money, but I don't think it's the government's job to take your money and give it to me. I have never seen the issue with CEOs making tens of millions of dollars; they do a very singular job (in a well-run company). > Technology picks up some of the slack by raising the floor standard of living, but only if doing so is also profitable for the financier or seller of the technology, and never anything beyond that. You think the Gates Foundation operates on a for-profit basis? I think you are correct with respect to businesses, but would prefer non-profits pick up the slack for the very bottom of society, rather than the government. > While that process may be necessary to incentivize innovation, it has societal costs, and it's not unreasonable to consider offsetting those costs by confronting the wealth gap directly. I agree it has societal costs. How do you propose to directly address it? I don't think giving the government the power to take and distribute how it deems best is a good solution. > the concentration of extreme wealth in few hands actually hinders innovation, and therefore makes society poorer overall, because a great number of people who might otherwise contribute creatively to major societal problems instead must focus their efforts on daily survival. Though it does have problems, I think it also makes it easier in some ways. Angel investors can make it much easier to start a business, and certainly easier than if you had to pitch the middle class for two thousand dollars a piece. I guess my overall issue is that I don't know of a better way. The best solution I can come up with to help is to stop the crony capitalist element, subsidies, etc.; where government picks winners and hands out contracts. I don't trust the government (particularly not the federal) to do most anything right, and I think if they are given more money (via, say, increased taxes), they will just waste it, likely signing more large, crony-ist government contracts in the process. If there's a better solution, what might it be? I think if one is proposed, maybe it's best to test it on a state or local level first. I tend to start from a moral perspective: how can we morally justify taking money from others at gunpoint to make things "fairer"?
- EliRivers 7y ago
  how can we morally justify taking money from others at gunpoint to make things "fairer"? Perhaps it depends how they got it. If they got it by "unfairly" taking it from their neighbour at gunpoint, can we morally justify taking it from them at gunpoint - perhaps in order to return it to that neighbour? If that seems like a fair action, if we can justify that, then the principle is established that sometimes it is morally justified, and we then need "only" identify those qualifying situations.

EliRivers 7y ago

How are you defining "meritocracy"? To some people, it's so obvious that we don't live in one that your statement seems just utterly incredible. I can only conclude you and they must have different definitions of "meritocracy". In the interests of not coming across as a passive-aggressive dickhead, I believe that the US and the UK (where I happen to live) are, to a large extent, meritocracies, and I think this is a bad thing that stunts (many) people's opportunities to excel and achieve. I suspect we have quite different working definitions of "meritocracy".